NAACP president says govt should seize guns to protect civil rights

As I wrote yesterday following passage of an anti-Second Amendment gun-control bill by the Florida State Senate, there is a growing acceptance by our political overlords to not only create enormous obstacles for Americans wanting to buy a gun, but to also come up with ways to seize guns from those who already own them.

While liberals repeat the feel-good mantra that gun seizures are necessary “for the children,” NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson believes that there’s another reason to seize them—protecting “civil rights” for “communities of color.”

In a recent opinion piece for BlackPressUSA.com calling for “sane, sensible laws to help eliminate or at least decrease the damage and death caused by gun violence,” Johnson rattled off the classic laundry list of liberal gun-control talking points:

Universal background checks on sales and transfers.

Banning military-style, semi-automatic assault guns.

Tough, new penalties for straw purchasers and gun traffickers.

Using the CDC to research gun violence as a public health issue.

Johnson then shoots down—pardon the pun—critics who might consider such government intervention “naively ambitious” by pointing out that “comprehensive, sustainable gun control is achievable” because Australia has done it.

Unfortunately for Mr. Johnson, his Australia example exposes the true motivation of anti-gun radicals. It’s not about the children or civil rights. It’s not even about “sensible” gun control. It’s about mandatory gun confiscation.

Following a mass shooting in 1996, the Australian government outlawed most guns and implemented a national gun registry. However, the pinnacle of their gun-control scheme was the implementation of a massive gun buy-back program where the government purchased up to one million guns financed by a special tax created for that purpose.

But as I said earlier, this isn’t about gun-control.

Australia’s buy-back program was mandatory and a sweeping approach to gun confiscation. This compulsory program was paramount to gun-control efforts in the land down under. In a National Review article written in 2014 in response to Obama’s praise of Australia’s gun confiscation program, Charles Cook points out how the left conveniently leaves this little tidbit of information out of the debate to hide their true intentions.

“You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.”

Still, calling American individualism a “fetish-like obsession,” Johnson hails Australia’s “gun-control intervention” as an example of unity in favor of national safety and progress.